Let's not get this twisted, she told Henley's narrative just as Olsen told Brook's narrative. Both are largely uncorroborated as neither agree on much and the only other person who can give his version was killed. I'd agree Ramsland's book is better and Olsen may have included some sensationalist newspaper accounts but the crux of each of their versions rely on a largely unsubstantiated story from an unreliable person with reason to lie.
It's weird you've made all these posts with such confidence when they're virtually all based on misinformation. It honestly doesn't seem like you've looked into the case at all, you seem to have half-read and distorted all the facts and narratives. Very anti critical thinking.
Almost all the books on the case have misinformation and/or lead you into misleading territory, playing very fast and loose with the reality. Jack Olsen's book was almost completely anecdotal and he made a couple of mistakes in his book when compared to the reality of the HMM. Gurwell and Lise Olsen's book contained outright fabrications. Gurwell claimed Henley killed Corll because he made fun of his inability to get an erection and rape Rhonda. Lise further messes up the timeline and claims Henley was involved in way more murders than he was (he participated in 13) and claimed Rhonda was Henley's girlfriend. Rhonda had a brief fling with Henley prior to dating her fiancee and they were just friends primarily. Henley had a girlfriend during the killings (and Aguirre's death). Ramsland on the other hand, clears up the timeline of the murders and a few of the misconceptions about the case. She was overly sympathetic to Henley sure, with a few questionable phrasings, but what you're suggesting is bordering on ludicrous. Ramsland reported the facts of the case clinically (as another commenter said) and was the only one that treated the psychological dynamics and grooming aspects of the case as important. Her assessment as a professional forensic psychologist was plausible and well-reasoned. However, you seem to have cleaned all the wrong things from her book. Henley was a willing interview participant so obviously it contained his point of view. You make it sound as if she took Henley at face value, an idea you could only believe if you can't properly read. Henley's original statements had errors and are not completely reliable because he was so high on drugs at the time. LE submitted doctored reports about there hour-long talks with Henley only after a Grand Jury complained (weeks later, no doubt to better serve official narratives). All this could explain the contradictions in the Henley-centric narrative provided in Ramsland's book. This isn't a Henry Lee Lucas type case like you're implying. In short, the inconsistencies could be due to a number of different things, all equally plausible, such as bad memories or in fact outright lying. Who's to say for sure? Ramsland does address the contradictions—though in a more roundabout way. She also never spent any time on the conspiracy theory that Brooks wanted to torture girls (which was revealed to be a lie through the recent Vargas letters recently). She spent less than two sentences on that, and only because she was quoting Henley (which was clear in the text) and a woman who corresponded with him. Her thoughts on Brooks didn't come from Henley at all but Brooks own statements. Overall she wasn't wrong. Henley took more responsibility and was more accepting of facing consequences than Brooks. In his statements he was incredibly cold and callous. However, since there is less known abt him, it's easy to interpret his behavior in a dark way, the same was constantly done to Henley before the Serial Killer's Apprentice cleared things up. But either way, Brooks role tends to always gets minimized in this debacle, so it was refreshing to see someone look at him more objectively. Olsen's book did not use his narrative, no book did, for either him or Henley. Henley was the only one who got to say his own narrative, I have no idea where you spun that idea from. Brooks statements to cops are basically the only thing ever quoted by him, and they're too short to be a "version" of anything. He was far more self-serving and quiet about his role. I wouldn't necessarily say he threw Henley under the bus (or vice versa) though. He said Henley was sadistic, which was true by Henley's own admission. That was basically all he said, and by then Henley was already doomed so does it even matter? Henley as a matter of fact covered for Brooks and didn't mention him in his first statements to police, not until after Brooks made his own statements. The only thing he said 'attacking him' was the claim about the girls, which has since been debunked. There were already rumors like that floating around by ppl making baseless claims, so I suppose you could say Henley was just mining the streak. Another delusion by you is that Ramsland and Henley himself paint him as simply a victim, when Henley would be the first to admit his guilt. Henley may lie about this and that but on the whole no one can say he was sparing himself. He admitted to many damning things in his narrative, I wouldn't call it blatantly self-serving—at least no more than the average person. Ramsland expands on this over here in a way:
Revising My Ideas About a Kid Who Killed
And while the truth of what exactly happened during the murders themselves, both accomplice statements taken individually help fill in the blanks, as do the torture devices found at Corll's home and the autopsy reports. From these, as well as corroborating witness reports and dates of dissappearances, we can get a rough picture of the relative truth. We can call this 'pure conjecture" but it's really the best way to know what happened in any murder case. Understanding the perpetrators character also doesn't hurt. We do know lots of stuff about the three perpetrators, it's hardly "all unknown."
Marty Jones and Henley were seen arguing at a restaurant, it's in Ramsland's book. Johnny Reyna saw the three together before there dissappearance. I don't understand the point you're trying to make though, you and
@Bored_To_Death thoughts were not mutually exclusive. It's not uncommon for serial killers to kill people they dislike but I wouldn't call it personal hitman use in this case because Henley directly tortured and killed some victims. He admitted to showing initiative in this, it's not exactly a secret. My point being, he didn't just give Jones and Cobble to Corll, he tortured them both himself and admitted to killing Cobble and helping strangle Jones to death. None of that reads as using a personal hitman, Henley did the job himself. Brooks did the same thing to the Harvey boy. What's particularly shocking abt this? Obviously it's horrible but it's nothing out of the norm for murderers. All it shows (aside from their depravity) is that Henley and Brooks used their situation with Corll to their advantage, which is hardly a secret. How was the other commenter's reading generous lol? No one is saying the accomplices aren't culpable as hell. You're very obsessed with looking at the case in a simplistic way, omitting any other possibilities.
Henley didn't being Rhonda there to rape her,
@Bored_To_Death got that correct. It was to protect her from her dad and keep Corll from making a move on Kerley. It's literally mentioned at Henley's trial. Henley and Brooks would bring girls there for that purpose occasionally. Ramsland makes a good case for this in her book which I'm certain you half-read. It's also not a secret what Henley and Corll talked abt privately, it's in Henley's first statement. Corll was outraged that Henley brought a girl (Rhonda was there too early) and Henley was too stupid to notice the dangerousness of that statement. Corll mentioned this again while handcuffing Henley. Rhonda has embellished abt this case a lot, but she's also made statements that were harmful to Henley (him telling her he had a feeling Aguirre was dead) so I don't know what you're once again going on abt. I think she has a right to feel however she wants about Henley. The idea that she called him a hero and campaigned for his release is a fabrication. Yes she defended him, but she didn't lie for him. She actually later claimed Henley told her he thought abt shooting her in the head that night, in case he couldn't save her. Jack Olsen's account of the catsup was factually wrong. You can read what actually happened on Wikipedia (sources are linked). Btw, Tim Kerley was asked for his pov by the same journalists who wrote Rhonda's later version of events, and he never refuted her claims. You seem to have all your facts completely mixed up. All you have are wild theories. You also seem to be implying that Henley and Brooks were in this back and forth battle of arguing with each other, when in fact they barely spoke after getting arrested.
Henley also isn’t campaigning for parole Myra Hindley style, he seems to be going with the flow. Chances of him getting out are low and he knows it. Doesn't even go to the hearings sometimes. He didn't even request compassionate release like the media portrayed it. Matter of fact, investigators were impressed with his stoic acceptance of his fate after his arrest, according to Jack Olsen's book.
